Amendment 1 Questions.doc

SOCIAL SECURITY

Office of Acquisition and Grants

August 10, 2012

TO:

All Interested Parties

FROM:

Christopher Mettee

Social Security Administration

Office of Acquisition and Grants

7111 Security Boulevard

Baltimore, MD 21244-1811

RE:

Solicitation SSA-RFP-12-1052 for Geospatial Information System Support Services, Amendment 1 To Whom It May Concern:

SSA provides Amendment 1 to the Solicitation SSA-RFP-12-1052 to respond to solicitation inquiries. The questions (in blue), with their respective response from SSA (in red), are as follows:

Question 1: E-2.3 Volume II – Past Performance Information (page 74) - In an effort of increase competition for this HUBZone SB set aside, would the Government consider keeping the required number of recent customer references by the [Prime] Offeror at three, but reducing the customer reference requirement for “GIS support services based upon ARC GIS Version 10 to the Federal Government” from three to one?

Answer 1: We will change the requirements under Addendum E, Section 2.3 to allow Offerors to submit three recent customer references from Federal Government or non-Federal customers that are similar to the requirements of this RFP in terms of providing GIS support services based upon ARC GIS Version 10. However, under Addendum E, Section 3.3, Relevant Experience Evaluation Factor, we will rate Offerors higher that demonstrate relevant experience for the Federal Government as a prime contractor. We feel that there are unique requirements for GIS support services, particularly involving Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and National Institute of Standards and Technologies (NIST) requirements placed upon Federal GIS that would be absent in a commercial GIS.

Question 2: E-2.3 Volume II – Past Performance Information (page 74) - Would the government consider changing the customer reference requirement for “GIS support services based upon ARC GIS Version 10 to the Federal Government” to “…to the Federal Government or other governmental entity?

Answer 2: We will change the requirements under Addendum E, Section 2.3 to allow Offerors to submit three recent customer references from Federal Government or non-Federal customers that are similar to the requirements of this RFP in terms of providing GIS support services based upon ARC GIS Version 10. However, under Addendum E, Section 3.3, Relevant Experience Evaluation Factor, we will rate Offerors higher that demonstrate relevant experience for the Federal Government as a prime contractor. We feel that there are unique requirements for GIS support services, particularly involving Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and National Institute of Standards and Technologies (NIST) requirements placed upon Federal GIS that would be absent in a commercial GIS.

Question 3: REF. E-2.1 Format of Proposals, first full paragraph. Within the paragraph, it states: “Offerors must submit on all Microsoft compatible files…that comprise their proposal.” May offerors use Adobe .pdf files for their proposal?

Answer 3: No, Offerors must submit files in Microsoft modifiable and compatible files, such as Microsoft Word for non-pricing table responses, and Microsoft Excel for pricing table responses.

Question 4: REF. E-2.3 Volume II – Past Performance, 1st paragraph. The second sentence states, “Such experience must be similar to the requirements of this RFP in terms of providing GIS support services … to the Federal Government.” The requirement that experience must be “to the Federal Government” appears to be very restrictive. We request that the requirement be changed to allow ARC GIS experience that commercial customer references be acceptable as well. Will the SSA please change the requirement to read, “…based upon ARC GIS Version 10 to Federal Government and/or commercial customers”?

Answer 4: We will change the requirements under Addendum E, Section 2.3 to allow Offerors to submit three recent customer references from Federal Government or non-Federal customers that are similar to the requirements of this RFP in terms of providing GIS support services based upon ARC GIS Version 10. However, under Addendum E, Section 3.3, Relevant Experience Evaluation Factor, we will rate Offerors higher that demonstrate relevant experience for the Federal Government. We feel that there are unique requirements for GIS support services, particularly involving Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and National Institute of Standards and Technologies (NIST) requirements placed upon Federal GIS that would be absent in a commercial GIS.

Question 5: REF. E-2.3 Volume II – Past Performance, 4th paragraph. The fourth paragraph states, “If the Offeror proposes a Subcontractor to perform any requirement in this RFP, it must provide three references for that Subcontractor.” Since the Prime Contractor is responsible for performance, cost control, quality, and contract management, may we assume that our subcontractors will not be required to have their customer references complete the full Questionnaire?

Answer 5: If the Offeror proposes a subcontractor to perform any material portion of this requirement, it must provide three recent customer references that demonstrate relevant past performance based upon the role of that subcontractor. The fact that a prime contractor is ultimately responsible for performance does not dispel that subcontractor past performance is a valid indicator for determining successful future contract performance for the role supported by that subcontract. Therefore, we strongly disagree that the requirement for three recent references for subcontractors is “unnecessary and overly restrictive.”

Question 6: REF. E-2.3 Volume II – Past Performance, 4th paragraph. The fourth paragraph states, “If the Offeror proposes a Subcontractor to perform any requirement in this RFP, it must provide three references for that Subcontractor.” (Underline emphasis added). Since the Prime Contractor’s past performance references are of paramount importance, may we suggest that “three references” for the subcontractors is unnecessary and overly restrictive. Will the SSA please consider changing the requirement for subcontractor references to “one” or “two” references?

Answer 6: If the Offeror proposes a subcontractor to perform any material portion of this requirement, it must provide three recent customer references that demonstrate relevant past performance based upon the role of that subcontractor. The fact that a prime contractor is ultimately responsible for performance does not dispel that subcontractor past performance is a valid indicator for determining successful future contract performance for the role supported by that subcontract. Therefore, we strongly disagree that the requirement for three recent references for subcontractors is “unnecessary and overly restrictive.”

Question 7: REF. E-3.5 Price Evaluation Factor, 3rd paragraph. Within the 3rd paragraph, it states, “After calculating the total order amount for each proposal, SSA will rank proposals from lowest priced to highest priced, favoring the lowest priced responses.” (Underline emphasis added.) However, the cover letter clearly stated that “SSA intends to award a firm-fixed price Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity-type contract, spanning over five years, to the highest-rated and responsible HUBZone-certified small business.” Additionally, Section E-3.5 states that “The Government will conduct a Best Value tradeoff comparison, focusing on the differences in non-price factors and evaluated prices between the Officers in order to determine which Offerer’s proposal provides the best value to the government.” Given the inconsistencies of the above three statements, can you please confirm whether SSA is evaluating proposals based on “Best Value” (technical approach is more important than price) or “Lowest Price – Technically Acceptable” (price is more important than technical quality)? If, in fact, SSA is using “Best Value”, then will SSA consider deleting the following wording from the solicitation: “SSA will rank proposals from lowest priced to highest priced, favoring the lowest priced responses.”

Answer 7: To clarify, strictly for the Price Evaluation Factor, SSA will rank proposals from the lowest priced to highest priced. However, in the overall best value determination, SSA will consider both non-price and price evaluation factors. Addendum E, Section 3.5 stipulates:

“Non-price factors of Past Performance and Relevant Experience are approximately equal in importance. Non-price evaluation factors combined are approximately equal to price; however the closer the non-price evaluation ratings of the various proposals are to one another, the more important price considerations become in determining the overall best value for the Government.”

Therefore, Offerors should NOT assume that the agency would make an award to the lowest priced, technically acceptable Offeror, as our intent is to award based upon the agency’s interpretation of best value identified above. Under Addendum E, Section 3.5, we removed the reference to “favoring the lowest priced responses” to prevent any confusion.

Question 8: REF. B-2.4 Functional Area II: System Operation and Maintenance. Does the SSA have any historical information or statistics related to the number of “severe”, “significant”, “medium”, and “low” issues that have been reported with the GIS system? Is there any information related to the root causes of these outages (e.g. hardware failure, network connectivity issues, software bugs, etc.)?

Answer 8: We do not have any historical information or statistics related to the number of “severe, significant, medium, and low issues” reported within the agency’s GIS. Further, we do not have information relating to the root causes of any outages.

Question 9: B.2.7 - Testing and Acceptance. Does SSA run its GIS servers on the physical Dell 2950/R900/R910 servers or does SSA utilize virtual machines with these physical servers acting as VM hosts? IF SSA utilizes virtualization technology, then which virtualization platform does SSA utilize (e.g. VMWare, Citrix, Microsoft, etc.)

Answer 9: We configured our GIS applications to operate on virtual machine. The servers we utilize are VM hosts and based on VMWare ESX software.

Question 10: PLACE OF PERFORMANCE. SOW Section B-2.4 Functional Area II, says “…support and maintenance requires the contractor to be on-site, in some cases within 2 hours of notification.” Additionally, SOW Section B-2.5 Functional Area III, says “…the COTR may require that the contractor provide two personnel onsite…” However, the solicitation is silent as to the place of performance for Functional Area I GIS Functionality Corrections & Enhancements ; nor does the solicitation include any statement as to the government facilities and equipment that will be provided by the SSA for contractor use. Are we correct in our assumption that performance of services relative to Functional Area I, will be performed at the Contractor’s Facilities?

Answer 10: Under Functional Area 1, we anticipate that the Contractor will complete a large majority of the work at its own facilities. This is not to say that, upon receiving proper suitability determinations, the Agency will not allow the Contractor on-site at its Baltimore, MD headquarters for technical meetings or to collaborate ideas for implementing the numerous GIS projects.

Work under Functional Area 2 will require the Contractor to perform at its own facilities and on Government facilities, depending on the nature of the services provided.

For work under Functional Area III, we anticipate providing the Contractor with Government Furnished Property and internet/telephone access at the area(s) designated by the Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative (COTR) during declared emergencies, scheduled, and unscheduled exercises. We will provide an itemized list of GFP, space, and services that the agency will make available as part of Functional Area III in a subsequent amendment.

Question 11: Section B-2.3 states –

a. (b) - Install and configure on-site provided ArcGIS Advanced Server in Durham Support Center as SSA failover (SSA will not allow remote installations) and

b. (d) - Install and configure ArcGIS Advanced Server on-site in SSA regions 4 (Atlanta, GA) and 6 (Dallas, TX) devolution sites (or backup sites)

c. B-2.6 Travel -

SSA anticipates that the contractor must travel during the course of performance at least 50 miles outside of SSA headquarters in Baltimore, MD. In Contract Year 1 and 2, the contractor should anticipate these travel requirements at least three times per contract year. For Contract Year 3, the contractor should anticipate these travel requirements at least six times per contract year. SSA anticipates travel will not exceed one-week in duration per occasion, with destinations including the Second Support Center in Durham, NC; and SSA Regional Offices located in Atlanta, GA and Dallas, TX. SSA will not reimburse the contractor for travel within these parameters.

Does SSA intend to not reimburse travel in Year 1 and Year 2 for the multiple trips planned, or does the reimbursement for Contract Year 3? Can SSA clarify what is included for travel or if travel costs should be included in the CLINs that match the identified work scope?

Answer 11: SSA’s intent is not to directly reimburse the limited travel within the identified parameters of Addendum B, Section 2.6. We believe that we have provided sufficient information concerning those limited travel events that the Contractor should be able to factor those costs into its CLINs. There are several CLINs that SSA intends to purchase on a recurring basis under Functional Area 2. The Offeror could use these CLINs, or any other CLINs on the contract, to factor in reimbursement of these limited travel events.

Question 12: If additional resources and/or skill sets are required in conjunction with delivering on future IDIQ tasks that could fall within and existing CLIN and SOW item (e.g. – Imagery Analysts), will the successful contractor be able to utilize labor categories outside of the single integration labor category and/or adjust the price of FFP CLIN to meet the government’s requirement?

Answer 12: This contract is a firm-fixed price contract and prices are not subject to upwards changes after contract award. The Contractor must propose using only the CLINs established by the Solicitation.

Question 13: Issue 11 on Page 10: “USGS earthquake data feed does not display enough information on the data tag (i.e. Office Code, Office type, Physical Address, Office Manager, Email & Phone#, Fulltime employee count, and Handicapped employee count).

Does SSA want the USGS hosted feed to be joined to SSA Offices and then the resulting information displayed? Or does SSA want to create a buffer around the earthquake to view information regarding any SSA offices affected?

Answer 13: Our intent with Issue 11 was not as you described. We have revised the requirement to ‘USGS earthquake data feed does not display the complete attributes available from USGS for each seismic alert. In addition, the date and time signature of events are missing.’

Question 14: Do subcontractors without defined workshare require a PP questionnaire?

Answer 14: We interpret this question to mean does an Offeror require subcontractor past performance questionnaires for a subcontractor not directly performing GIS services under the contract. An example of this type of subcontract under the GIS contract, would be a subcontract that operates and maintains the Contractor’s facilities. In this example, the agency does not require subcontractor past performance questionnaires. However, if the Contractor proposes a subcontractor to perform a material requirement on the Solicitation, the agency requires three recent past performance questionnaire that are relevant to the role of that subcontractor.

Question 15: Item ‘g’ on Page 16 – what is meant by alerting key personnel via messaging regarding “Commercial Imagery Providers: Geo-eye, Digital Globe, SPOT”? Does SSA want to be alerted if these systems/services are down?

Answer 15: For item (g), we removed the requirement of “Commercial Imagery Providers: Geo-eye, Digital Globe, SPOT.” There is no need to warn ‘key personnel’ that the imagery is not connected.

Question 16: It is unclear if Vol II is required. Page 72 requests two volumes due and lists three volumes total. Please clarify the number of volumes you are expecting.

Answer 16: Volume II is required. Within Volume II, Offerors may submit letters of commendation and/or evaluations of performance in trade journals, newspapers, periodicals, etc. for any reference. Further, the Offeror may also list the names and contact information for the references it arranged for submission to SSA.

Question 17: The Offeror must provide all embedded object files in their native formats. Please clarify your intent of this direction.

Answer 17: The agency’s intent with this requirement was for the Offeror to not change the format of its submitted documents to prevent editing. For example, the pricing table’s native format is Microsoft Excel. Offerors must not embed the pricing table in its Volume I response as a PDF document or convert it to a Microsoft Word table.

Question 18: I request you provide us the following details:

1) List of Items, Schedule of Requirements, Scope of Work, Terms of Reference, Bill of Materials required.

2) Soft Copy of the Tender Document through email.

3) Names of countries that will be eligible to participate in this tender.

4) Information about the Tendering Procedure and Guidelines.

5) Estimated Budget for this Purchase.

6) Any Extension of Bidding Deadline.

7) Any addendum or Pre Bid meeting minutes.

Answer 18: The agency has already provided all necessary information relating to “list of items, schedule of requirements, scope of work, terms of reference, [and] bill of materials required” within the Federal Business Opportunity website. Since the information is available publically online, we will not be providing Offerors with a copy of the solicitation via e-mail. Regarding countries that are eligible to participate in this acquisition, any company responsible company registered within the Central Contractor Registry may participate in this acquisition; however, due to the nature of GIS services, there is a requirement to have personnel on-site to SSA’s facilities within 2-hours of notification. This may create a restriction for some Offerors that do not have or cannot create a local presence. SSA included instructions/procedures and guidelines for evaluation within Addendum E of the Solicitation. SSA will not provide the estimated budget for this requirement. SSA will not grant an extension of the due date for offers at this time. There is no addendum or “pre bid meeting minutes” available. The only information available is that which SSA provided within the Federal Business Opportunities website.

SSA also made the following changes to the Solicitation based upon responses received:

· Addendum B, Section 2.3(a): Revised “USGS earthquake data feed does not display enough information on data tag (i.e. Office Code, Office Type, Physical Address, Office Manager, Email & Phone #, Fulltime Employee count, and Handicapped Employee count)” to “USGS earthquake data feed does not display the complete attributes available from USGS for each seismic alert.”

· Addendum B, Section 2.3(g): Removed requirement for notification of key SSA personnel concerning Commercial Imagery Providers, including Geo-eye, Digital Globe, and SPOT.

· Addendum E, Section 2.3: For the statement, “such experience must be similar to the requirements of this RFP in terms of providing GIS support services based upon ARC GIS Version 10 to the Federal Government,” added “and non-Federal customers.”

· Addendum E, Section 3.2: For the statement, “SSA considers similar service as where the Offeror provided support for a GIS solution based upon an ESRI ArcGIS 10 Version 10 solution to the Federal Government,” added “and non-Federal customers.”

· Addendum E, Section 3.5: Removed statement “favoring the lowest priced responses.”

Should you have any questions regarding this Amendment, please contact Christopher Mettee at Christopher.Mettee@ssa.gov.

Respectfully, Christopher Mettee

Contracting Officer

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION BALTIMORE MD 21235-0001